British Journal of Educational Studies ISSN: 0007-1005 (Print) 1467-8527 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbje20 Global Citizenship: A Typology for Distinguishing its Multiple Conceptions Laura Oxley & Paul Morris To cite this article: Laura Oxley & Paul Morris (2013) Global Citizenship: A Typology for Distinguishing its Multiple Conceptions, British Journal of Educational Studies, 61:3, 301-325, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2013.798393 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393 Published online: 26 Jun 2013. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1210 View related articles Citing articles: 5 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbje20 Download by: [Durham University Library] Date: 11 November 2015, At: 15:00 British Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 61, No. 3, September 2013, pp. 301–325 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: A TYPOLOGY FOR DISTINGUISHING ITS MULTIPLE CONCEPTIONS by LAURA OXLEY1 and PAUL MORRIS, Institute of Education, University of London ABSTRACT: The promotion of ‘Global Citizenship’ (GC) has emerged as a goal of schooling in many countries, symbolising a shift away from national towards more global conceptions of citizenship. It currently incorporates a proliferation of approaches and terminologies, mirroring both the diverse conceptions of its nature and the socio-politico contexts within which it is appropriated. This paper seeks to clarify this ambiguity by constructing a typology to identify and distinguish the diverse conceptions of GC. The typol- ogy is based on two general forms of GC: cosmopolitan based and advocacy based. The former incorporates four distinct conceptions of GC – namely, the political, moral, economic and cultural; the latter incorporates four other conceptions – namely, the social, critical, environmental and spiritual. Subsequently, we briefly illustrate how the typology can be used to evaluate the critical features of a curriculum plan designed to promote GC in England. The typology provides a novel and powerful means to analyse the key fea- tures of the very diverse range of educational policies and programmes that promote GC. Keywords: global citizenship, global citizenship education, global dimension, cosmopolitanism, curriculum analysis 1. INTRODUCTION In a recent seminar series, different speakers used Global Citizenship (GC) as a basis for: justifying a ban in western society on face-covering veils for women; promoting and working with differences across cultural and religious divides; deconstructing western hegemony; and giving citizens new skills enabling them to resolve conflicts and contest injustices. A similar ambiguity emerged at a work- ing group when GC was proposed as one of the primary goals for development education funded by the United Kingdom, but was later removed after an agreed Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 definition of the term could not be provided. This diversity mirrors that in broader writings, policies and practices of GC education. GC has, along with ‘lifelong learning’, taken on the status of a ‘global’ or ‘travelling’ educational policy. It is now promoted as a goal of schooling gen- erally, and specifically of school subjects such as Civics and Social Studies in many countries; and in many others, variants of GC – such as the ‘Global Dimension’ and ‘Global Awareness’ – are promoted. However, it is subject to a ISSN 0007-1005 (print)/ISSN 1467-8527 (online) © 2013 Society for Educational Studies http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393 http://www.tandfonline.com 302 GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP wide range of interpretations in the diverse contexts in which it is appropriated and promoted. An associated construct, Global Citizenship education (GCE), is also entwined with a number of overlapping ideas including development education, democratic education, education for cosmopolitan citizenship, peace education and human rights education. Consequently, as identified by Marshall (2005, 2007), both GC and GCE are used ambiguously and understood differently both within and across contexts. The resulting confusion is not merely a problem of semantics: as Byers (2005) notes, the term global is used to invoke ideas ranging from ‘[people who are] well-rounded [and] adaptable’ to G. W. Bush’s ‘civilizing mission’ in the ‘Global War on Terrorism’. This paper begins by identifying and distinguishing the main ways in which GC has been categorised to date, within three major categories: ‘dichotomous’ (polarised categorisations of GC); ‘GC attributes’ and GC ‘-isms’ (ideological underpinnings of GC). We then propose a typology for identifying and distinguish- ing the diverse and major conceptions of GC. Finally, the paper suggests how the typology might be used to analyse a curriculum promoting a form of GCE. The typology is constructed using McCracken’s (1988) five stages, through which observations and relationships in academic texts are explored and com- bined into themes and categories through an iterative process. Relevant literature in English was identified through an extensive library search to discover materials focused on GC as their main theme. We started with large edited works relat- ing to GC (and GCE) and subsequently investigated journal articles and books referenced in these texts, until a comprehensive picture had formed. The tex- tual analysis initially involved drawing out and coding ideas and statements from each text; these were then aligned with each other to draw out relationships and interconnections. These were then subjected to critical scrutiny and patterns and themes were identified. Eight conceptions were identified that emphasise distinct understandings of the nature and purposes of GC. At an early stage it became clear that within each of these conceptions there were a number of variations: for example, the political conception incorporated those who saw GC as a means to promote a world state and those who advocated anarchy. Accordingly, we have also identified some of the noticeable variations within each of the eight conceptions. Following an outline of existing typologies, we summarise these eight conceptions and describe the Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 approaches to GC associated with each, the key theorists and the contemporary proponents. We subsequently illustrate, by analysing an intended GCE curriculum using the typology, how it can be employed as a device to explore and evaluate the practical implications of the range of ideas and perspectives within the field of GC. 2. GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP:THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE ‘Citizenship’ itself is viewed from many angles: for example, as a set of rights (Marshall, 1950), as a set of attributes (Cogan, 1998 & 2000), as a ‘status, feeling GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 303 or practice’ (Osler and Starkey, 2005) or as ‘a category, a tie, a role or an iden- tity’ (Tilly, 1996). However, GC is distinctive because of the polarity of opinion it engenders: for some it implies universality and a deep commitment to a broader moral purpose, while for others it cannot feasibly be a valid concept due to the per- ceived absence of a ruling authority (e.g. a world government) on which to base such an idea of citizenship. Thus Parekh (2003, p. 12) rejects the idea of the global citizen with ‘no political home’ and advocates instead the idea of the ‘globally oriented citizen’. Nevertheless, it is clear from the growing literature, policies and practices employing GC (as identified by Schattle, 2008b) that it is a distinctive category within and beyond the field of citizenship, meriting comprehensive anal- ysis. In developing a typology, the varied interpretations need to be both aligned with each other and with associated concepts such as cosmopolitanism, human rights, development and democracy. We identified three approaches currently used to describe and distinguish mod- els of GC. We term these the dichotomous, the attributes and the -isms. The first consists of models that are characterised by the use of binary or polarised distinc- tions between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ conceptions of GC, whether the polarities are explicit (for example, Shultz’s [2011] ‘weak’ versus ‘strong’) or implicit (for example, Tully’s [2008] ‘modern’ versus ‘diverse’). The presentation and critique of the negative often serves to provide powerful rationalisations for the positive. Models that illustrate this approach are shown in Table 1. Generally, the category in Column A is portrayed as the hegemonic, dominant form; and that in Column B as the counter-hegemonic, ideal form. Notable exceptions to this are the models constructed by Lapayese (2003) and by Cameron and Haanstra (2008), who argue for a balance between the two forms in each of their models. This approach is useful because it provides a critical perspective and identifies sets of TABLE 1: Examples of dichotomous approaches to models of global citizenship Column A (often hegemonic, Column B (often dominant form of global counter-hegemonic, ideal Source citizenship) form of global citizenship) Falk (1993, 1997) Globalisation from above Globalisation from below Lapayese (2003), using Common grounds approach Grounded global citizenship Downloaded by [Durham University Library] at 15:00 11 November 2015 Olssen (2002)and Ichilov (2002) Andreotti (2006b) Soft global citizenship Critical global citizenship Arneil (2007) Civilising global citizenship Rooted global